Thank you very much to Sherry Ellis for suggesting the title for this series. It won 3-1 in the poll I had up.
Welcome to my new series, Tough Topics. It will be taking place every other Monday until further notice. Before we go any further, I would like to say three things:
Number One- This is a judge free zone. If you post a hateful comment, you will have one warning. If you continue to bully, I will screenshot your comments and use them in whatever anti-bullying post I have coming up next. I want everyone to express their opinions and feelings, but I want it done as kindly as possible.
Number Two- If you want to write a guest post on any sort of controversial/important/hard to discuss/generally tough topic, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org so we can discuss it. You will be kept as anonymous as you want.
Number Three- Massive disclaimer. I am not a professional or an expert of any kind. What I post here is from the research that I've done mixed with my own personal experiences. If you feel that you need help of any kind, I urge you to seek it with a local professional who knows what they're doing. After this post, the disclaimer will be at the bottom of each post, along with any links to sources and contact information for help on relevant topics.
With the new health care laws going around, there have been a lot of changes happening. One of the biggest, to my understanding, is that employers must provide health care, including birth control, to their female employees. That's a big enough scandal/political issue already that I'm not even going to get started on in this post, because it's not what I want this topic to be focused on.
Apparently, there are a lot of religious companies, that want to opt out of some birth control options for their employees. Most birth control pills will not be on the list (meaning, some will), but IUD's and the morning after pills will be on that list. (For specific companies. I am referring to Hobby Lobby specifically, because that it what I have sources to).
That may seem like it's not that big of a deal, but I think it is.
If a woman is raped and goes to the hospital, they offer her the morning after pill to help prevent pregnancy. Do you know why they do that? Because that woman probably doesn't want to be pregnant with her attacker's child. If a mistake or misunderstanding occurs between the two parties and they discover that no birth control was used (missing a pill, a hole in the condom, thinking the other person was responsible for it, etc), why should they have the right taken away to decide if they are having the child? It's an option to give her the choice, before she ends up pregnant and has to make the choice of keeping it, abortion, or adoption.
Why are those specific things on the list? With the specific pills (birth control) and the IUD's, the uterus walls are thinned out so that the fertilized egg cannot attach itself. With the morning after pills, it brings on the period before the fertilized egg can attach itself. According to the companies that want to opt out of those specific methods of birth control, they say that it's a form of abortion.
Can I just point out three little things?
If they think that an egg that's been fertilized but has no chance to attach, grow, or even become a fetus being "aborted" is bad, how would they feel knowing that they took away the birth control option that could have prevented a pregnancy that resulted in an actual abortion?
If the egg has already implanted itself to the wall of the uterus, the morning after pill won't even work.
Not to mention the fact that 30%-70% of eggs fail to attach anyways and then another 25% have natural miscarriages within the first 6 weeks. The statistics add up to being 50%-70% of the fertilized eggs never resulting in "established" pregnancies or birth. So, by their logic, those 50%-70% of fertilized eggs are all miscarriages? (That's a question, because I'm not assuming what they believe, but that seems to be my understanding if a form of birth control is "abortion").
A woman should have every single available right to whatever form of birth control she wants. It is her body that will be carrying the child. If she is not financially, physically, mentally, or emotionally ready for a child (or if she just plain doesn't want one) then she should not be pressured or forced into having one because she doesn't have access to whatever it is that's needed to prevent a pregnancy in the first place.
A man should have every single available right to whatever form of birth control he wants. He may not be carrying the child, but he would be just as financially, physically, mentally, and emotionally responsible for it as the woman. (Assuming he's not a rapist. But if he is, throw his ass in jail, never let him out, and fuck anyone who thinks a rapist should have any sort of parental rights. But that's another topic.) He should not be forced or pressured into being a father because he doesn't have access to whatever is needed to prevent pregnancy.
To my knowledge (and what I just found online), men have five forms of birth control. This may be the most awkward thing I've ever typed on here. Not doing it at all, "outercourse" (that's what the website called it and I personally find it a hilarious name), condoms, "withdrawal" (which shouldn't be on the list at all in my opinion), and a vasectomy. So, basically, they can just not do it with a girl's girly parts, they can use a condom, or they can get the snip snip.
Why don't men have more options? Am I the only one who thinks that it makes sense to give equal options to both parties if both parties are responsible for the outcome? Not all birth control works 100% of the time (except not having sex, unless your The Virgin Mary, so not even that is 100% effective if you believe in that). It makes sense to me that there would be a lot less unplanned pregnancies if both the man and the woman had some other options, for instance, a daily pill.
I fully believe that everyone should have the access to whatever birth control that they want to use. If they had access, there would be less unplanned pregnancies. Less unplanned pregnancies would mean that the abortion rate would also be lower. If the goal of those companies is to keep their employees from going against their views (no abortions) then they should be taking steps to help prevent pregnancies to begin with, not taking the options away.
Not A Source But A Very Good Article